Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA
S.Ningappa, S/O Late Siddegowda – Appellant
Versus
N.Sheela – Respondent
ORDER :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.89/2024 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) by the impugned order.
3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3.1. A suit for partition came to be filed by N. Sheela – respondent No.1 with the following prayer and in respect of following properties:
PRAYER
“Wherefore, the plaintiff most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass en Judgment and Decree for partition and separate share in respect of all the schedule properties in items No.1 to 13 as follows :-
a Direct the first defendant and with 3rd defendant to division/partition/effect 1/6th share by way of fresh partition in relating to plaintiff share in respect of all the schedule properties in Sl. No.1 to 13, by failing this Hon'ble court may be directed concerned authorities to do the needful in respect of plaintiff 1/6th share by metes and bounds.
b. For cancellation/set-aside the registered partition deed dated: 01.01.2015 executed by
The court upheld the trial court's discretion to allow a suit for partition to proceed, emphasizing the need for full trial to address claims of misrepresentation and the nature of property documenta....
The amended Hindu Succession Act entitles daughters to seek partition regardless of prior registered partitions, affirming their rights to joint family properties.
Properties claimed as self-acquired were determined to be ancestral; the appeal for partition was dismissed due to lack of joint possession evidence and non-joinder of necessary parties, also barred ....
A granddaughter is entitled to seek partition of ancestral property, even during her father's lifetime, establishing daughters as coparceners under Hindu law.
A plaintiff asserting ownership based on historical rights and alleged partition must be permitted to pursue relief through trial when faced with disputed claims and questions of fact.
Prior oral partitions must be supported by evidence during trial; dismissing the application without trial is justified when material facts aren't suppressed.
A party is estopped from making claims contrary to prior admissions in legal notices, and a partition deed signed by the plaintiff is binding, rendering any claims of joint ownership barred by limita....
The court reaffirmed that a plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 based solely on the defendant's contentions; it must be based on the plaintiff's allegations and the merits of the case ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
